I am currently doing a Jack plan that has sweetspot workouts in them. However, when I do I review the workout (Sweet spot A#2 ) there is only 2 mins in Sweetspot. The intervals are at 75% of FTP.
Is it building up into the zone?
Thanks
Correct, and this is sweet spot progression vs sweet spot blocks. So itâs Z2+Z3+SS that all build up.
Our philosophy follows how many elites train. Which is you start out easy and build to hard. This progressive nature in the end you are getting similar results as you would be if you did hard the whole time but you will be much more fresh seasonally taking this approach.
2 Likes
Isnât the progression too slow? I understand the approach is to ease the beginnings, but I generated a 6 months Crunched Power plan and almost all âSweet Spotâ workouts contain zero SS Time in Zone. The description of the workout is âThe Sweet Spot zone is overlaps the top end of tempo workouts and the bottom end of threshold workouts, and is generally considered 88-94% of FTPâ, yet the highest the workouts go is 84%, so not even reaching the bottom of the range. Week 18 is the first week when 84% progresses into 87%. Only two very last SS workouts actually contain a bit of SS at 90%. How can a workout be called Sweet Spot Progression if there is no Sweet Spot? They are Tempo progression for sure, but not really SS.
I wonder if you may like Sweet Spot Blocks more? It is in the custom options.
Dave
I love your pure honesty 
So there are two primary things at play here
- New customers expectations like yourself
- Two different belief systems at play here
So the first one you are right, meaning since so many people come here with a TrainerRoad experience then they say âWhat is this?â As Dave pointed out we have SS blocks that would match closer to your definition, and we likely should change the default SS workouts to this just to match peoples expectations.
We still are following the more original definition of the âSS zoneâ which was popularized by FasCat before TR which was 84% but again we probably should create another sequence that follows TRâs version.
Secondly you can increase our intensity slider and more quickly get to the following which obviously starts to get brutal.
Finally is the philosophy difference. Our workouts or focused on the purpose of the workout not time in zone, and our belief is the purpose is not kill yourself today so you can be as fast as possible tomorrow. Our belief which has been show to create at least one TDF winner, is that the purpose of today is to do as little damage as possible to cause small changes that prepare you for tomorrow. You might get faster, faster taking the kill yourself today approach, in the long term both will produce similar results (can depend on individual specifics) but our version you will feel fresh and excited about race/outdoor season and the alternative can make you feel tired in need of more rest.
Letâs give a theoretical example: So letâs say at the end of a hard plan you can do 2X20 threshold at 300w intervals but at the end you feel very tired in life in general, versus a plan that felt reasonable for the most it until the later phases you can do 2X20 at 290w but you feel super fresh and excited to ride.
Thank you for the detailed reply and pointing out the alternative SS version with âtraditionalâ long blocks in SS. However, this is not exactly what I meant. I hate those blocks, they are a huge mental challenge compared to your approach of progressing workouts with smaller chunks.
I love your approach to SS workouts, but I feel like they are just a few percents off. And this is using the definition which you provide in workout details that âSS is generally considered 88-94% of FTPâ. I donât want 20-30 minute blocks in SS, but shouldnât we actually reach SS during the workout, even if just for a while?
Hereâs an example of the workout to better describe my âproblemâ with it. Within each sequence, we progress easily through high Z2 to Z3 from 70% to 84%, but we donât ever touch SS - so how is this SS progression?
I would understand if we progressed through tempo and went e.g. 76% â 82% â 88%. I understand your approach is not maximizing Time in Zone, but I expect the final block of each sequence to be within SS, defined by your own workout description as 88-94%. I think we should progress to reach SS eventually for the workout to be called Sweet Spot training. At the very end of the plan thatâs what happens, as the last block in each sequence is 90%, but isnât the road to get there is unnecessarily long at 5 months? Near the end of the plan we could already progress from low SS in tempo to high SS in threshold at 94%, rather than just beginning to actually train in SS when the plan is almost over.
I overlooked your reply that you are following the 84-97% definition of SS. In this case, the workouts make sense and the above reply is irrelevant. Then the only suggestion that I have is to include this information in workout description - currently it defines SS as 88-93% which led me to think that there is a bug with scaling. If you explained in the workout details that you assume SS to be 84-97% then everything would be clear. Sorry for the hassle 
Perfect glad you like it, yes, if you and others wanted it we could add one more progression type available under custom tab as well, which is âSS Progression 88%â or something that still takes the Z2-SS progression but SS starts a bit higher intensities. I think this is a reasonable idea to give another variant. But yes some how CJ is so flexible you can almost get any progressive plan you want out of it. I will update the description ASAP, yes making things obvious is most important.
1 Like
Thanks for understanding and your openness to feedback and change 
1 Like
I was about to start a topic on this same thing. The Sweet Spot A workouts donât match the description of hitting 88-94% and only max out at 84% for a 16-week plan.
The info above from Alex makes sense, but doesnât match up with the description on the Sweet Spot A workouts. If the description was updated it will help clear things up.
1 Like
Thanks yes!!! I was actually already fixed before you said this, so you must be looking at an older calendar or plan, if you create a new one it is updated.
Sorry for nitpicking but shouldnât the ânewâ broader FTP range description be 84% - 97% rather than 94%? Itâs what intervals.icu uses too
Oh my, now we have a rabbit hole⌠the original definition was 84-97. Others started to have 88-94 and 88-97, TR making the later popular.
I will think about this longer, but if you look at the original concept the idea was an intensity that causes less fatigue than threshold.
Well since threshold starts at 91% then 97% surely does not create less fatigue then 91-96%. I would argue very few people do 97% for 45 minutes or longer and if they are itâs threshold. Since it seems that their is not standard for what is sweet spot it would make sense to pick to pick something more logical to the purpose.
Here you can see someone discussing it and he felt Coggan originally stated 88-93âŚ
But I like this quote from that article
âWhen training at sweet spot intensity, you are placing your body under sustained stress, but not so much that you canât hold the effort for a long duration.â
ChatGPT agrees with our current definition
I like standards unless the standards are wrong or not standards and I would be happy to keep aligned to Intervals so I will keep thinking on this. Maybe I can convince David to switch to 94%
1 Like
Cool, thanks for the detailed explanation. I wasnât aware of the 84-94 definition. I knew there was the broader 84-97 range used by intervals among others, and the narrower 88-93 range. It makes sense that there are various approaches - after all they are just arbitrary ranges trying to describe physiological changes, the boundaries are not clear. It seems fine as long as we stay consistent within workouts and their descriptions
Thanks for understanding. Yes, that is most important. It was bad beforeâŚ
1 Like